18 Responses to “Free Jack Idema Blogburst”

1. NIF Says:
   November 9th, 2005 at 7:05 am

   The day after …

   Today’s dose of NIF - News, Interesting & Funny … It’s the Free Jack Idema Blogburst! (+ Open Trackbacks)

2. Penny Alesi Says:
   November 9th, 2005 at 8:28 am

   Love your column—–please add my name to the list to free them. Kept trying to email you, but my emails keep getting returned.
   Penny Alesi

3. BIG DOG's WEBLOG Says:
   November 9th, 2005 at 8:41 am

   Press Lie #2 About Jack Idema

   It is Wednesday and that is Free Jack Idema Day (really everyday is until we get him and his men home). This is press lie number 2 about Jack and the alleged torture.
   New York Magazine: “Early press reports indicated that three prisoners found i…

4. Cao Says:
   November 9th, 2005 at 8:53 am

   Penny, this is a blogburst, not a petition. I would need your blog url in order for you to participate…although..hmmmmm. A petition sounds like a good idea!

5. Theodore's World Says:
   November 9th, 2005 at 3:10 pm

   Free Jack Idema Blogburst

   These three Americans have been to hell. But we can help them back. It’s time to turn the heat up under the comfy chairs of the armchair quarterbacks who got them into this mess.

6. P.J. Onori Says:
   November 9th, 2005 at 7:15 pm

   I would of course hope for the safe return of these people if they’re innocent. I would also hope, under any circumstances, that they are given the rights deemed neccesary under the Geneva Convention.

   My curiosity here is, knowing your background on how much you support the current administration, is if you support Cheney’s push to allow U.S. agencies to be allowed to torture prisoners and commit other acts against international law.

   Under the law of probability, with all the prisoners we have in our custody, there has to be at least three prisoners that have been wrongly accused. With the number of detainees/prisoners, it’s bound to happen. Do these atrosities to prisoners of America cause the same outrage you feel to American prisoners? I would hope so.

   I want to make it abundantly clear that my deepest wishes go to these poor people who seem to have been the victim of horrible crimes against humanity. No one, in any country/from any country, deserves this sort of treatment. I hope everyone here can see this.

7. Cao Says:
   November 9th, 2005 at 7:36 pm

   No, I don’t feel the same outrage. That moral relativism. That excuses the atrocities that terrorists commit against women and children, innocent people–on a daily basis.

   There is no comparing these animals with the three American above. The three Americans above didn’t commit the crimes they were accused of–the people who detained them did. They were declared innocent of all charges at the end of March of 2005 after a new trial that was kept out of the press’s scrutiny. Yet, they STILL weren’t released.

   It was through their experience with torture that the taliban judge and the rest- placed their false accusations against them.

   The NDS not only employs the KGB’s arcane tactics and brutal methods, but carries a version of the KGB logo signifying the oppression and total control of a plunging dagger.

   Americans don’t subscribe to this line of thinking. I do not approve of the type of torture that was described in this case…but they do not, to my knowledge, use this type of torture at Gitmo or anywhere else–it has been found that they don’t. So I don’t know what you’re saying exactly.

   Many of these terrorists who are being detained were involved in killings and wounding election and aid workers, beheadings, and all sorts of atrocities. Our soldiers don’t commit these kinds of acts…it’s against the laws we’re bound by.

   These men were tortured with boiling water, starvation, threats of death, assault with various implements (such as wire cables and rubber whips), resulting in broken ribs, a separated sternum, torn rotator cuffs, hermorrhaged eyes, detached retinas, multiple contusions, lacerations and bruises. The Asst. US Consul DOS Kabul ordered the reports muted as to tone down the extent of the injuries.

   These men were beaten in and out of consciousness. Beatings, 24-hour a day restraints, falaqua, whippings, threat of execution–attempted rape, beatings with sticks–only allowing baths every 20 or 30 days–

   Have you read about the kind of treatment the men at Gitmo get? To draw a comparison is absolutely absurd.

8. Cao Says:
   November 9th, 2005 at 8:04 pm

   Prisoner Of War status has become a hot issue in the War On Terror. (See: AP articles on Saudi AQ Terrorist Yaser Esam Hamdi captured in Afghanistan in 2001. Newsweek, June 28, 2004; an illegal combatant who was reclassified as a POW subject to Geneva Convention Protections; and, Jose Padilla vs. US). The DOD has started calling POWs by the relatively new name- EPWs- Enemy Prisoners of War and by another brand new name- Illegal Combatants, aka, Enemy Combatants. The legal grounds to deny POW and Geneva Convention status to al-Qaida, Iraqi, and Taliban terrorists is simple– they don’t meet the requirements of Rule 4 of the Geneva Convention for Combatant Prisoners. Few terrorists do. To see these rules, follow this footnote: READ RULE 4. TASK FORCE SABER 7 followed these requirements to the very letter of the law.

   Terrorists don’t wear uniforms, have ID Cards, carry their weapons openly, wear unit patches (what would it say? AQ Killer Group with two burning towers as a logo?), or any of the other things required by Rule 4, except that they might be subordinate to a commander (like bin Laden, Hekmatyar, Mullah Omar, etc). But being subordinate to a madman does give rise to GC protections, you need to follow all of the requirements of Rule 4.

   Some people say that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. Cute saying, but not legally correct. Freedom fighters and guerillas, historically, wear uniforms- no matter how ragged or mismatched, they carry their arms openly, rarely target civilian women and children, have military ranks and often have Identity Cards. Examples include; Tito’s resistance in WWII, Cuba- 1950’s, Dominican Republic- 1960’s, Nicaraguan Sandinistas- 1970’s, the Salvadoran FMLN and the US backed Contras in the 1980’s, Karen Rebels-1990’s, and Commander Massoud’s Mujahadeen resistance against the Soviets between 1980 and 1989, and Massoud’s Northern Alliance resistance against he Taliban between 1996-2005.

   On the flip side, you have the Taliban, al-Qaida, and other terrorist organizations, which do none of these things. Nor do they abide by or follow the Rules of Land Warfare {GC Article 4 ß 2 (d)}. Terrorists indiscriminately kill women and children through acts of terror. Terrorists behead their hostages (as compared to Jack, who was denounced by the Taliban Judge/bomber he captured for failing to allow the terrorist to use the bathroom for a full twelve hours). Terrorists are defined as people who engage in “the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are general political, religious, or ideological (US Army Special Forces Force Protection Handbook; Joint Pub 1-02 dated March 23, 1994)

   The Taliban Judges and Taliban Prosecutors (supposedly “former”) that Karzai re-appointed to their positions in a secret “power-sharing” deal with Mullah Omar, are, in spite of their government positions, terrorists. The terrorists’ weapons and explosives were hidden in pillows, mattresses, and underground (there was SEMTEX and Alpha1X2 explosives hidden in Serajan’s pillow!). They used false names and counterfeit ID, they never wore uniforms (although they often wore black turbans), and they never followed the laws of land warfare. The bombers arrested by TF SABER 7 killed indiscriminately through acts of terror and assassination.

9. P.J. Onori Says:
   November 9th, 2005 at 10:18 pm

   “There is no comparing these animals with the three American above.”

   They’re both human. The minute we forget that, the easier it will be to allow torture.

   From what I saw at Abu Ghraib, those actions are most definitely below our standards. We used to be the shining beacon of human rights, that is questioned by the international community more and more with each passing day.

   The reason why we despise the methods of terrorist organizations is because they DON’T follow the laws set in the Geneva Conventions. To break those very laws that you condemn them for breaking makes you that much closer to them.

   “They were declared innocent of all charges at the end of March of 2005″

   Many of our prisoners or detainees haven’t even been given a court hearing to this date. If we follow the premise that everyone is guilty until proven innocent, then we have to assume that we are holding them as innocent people.

   Cheney wanted to pass a bill that would allow any actions that would not create organ failure or cause death. There’s a lot of room under that. You could definitely lob of all the fingers and toes a person has and not cause organ failure. Is that torture? I would hope everyone would say yes.

   The other problem with this arguement is that that it seems to rely on technicalities. Wars were fought in a very different manner when the Geneva Conventions were put into place. While is it most definitely conjecture, I would assume that the rules, if set today, would be broader to contain ‘non-uniform’ combatants. Once again, this is an assumption, I’m the first to admit it. However, war has changed. We are fighting a war against the terrorists. Whether we call them combatants, solidiers or terrorists, all of them are human beings. We have standards for how we treat human beings - we need to follow them.

   Also, how many future terrorists are we creating with the Abu Ghraibs and Gitmos? These institutions may be doing more to propigate hatred towards the United States than anything else. Torture never helps. Not in the short run, not in the long run. We see how appalled we all are when these things happen to our fellow soldiers/citizens - they should give us the same feeling for everyone else.

10. Rottweiler Puppy Says:
    November 9th, 2005 at 10:35 pm

    Free Jack Idema Blogburst

    Jack Idema really does work within the world of covert operations, and at the deepest levels. This should mean that he has our greatest respect: though, typically, we don’t get to hear about the duties men like Idema perform on our behalf, they play …

11. Cao Says:
    November 10th, 2005 at 3:30 am

    The prisoners at Gitmo throw their feces at the guards who are protecting them, among other things. They’re not allowed pens because they turn round and use them as weapons against their captors.

    Wow you’re an apologist for TERRORISTS. I can’t BELIEVE it. But then people like you also claim nobody heard of Bin Laden Before 9/11.

    From the Washington Times:

    Freed detainees have complained of intimidation by dogs, being forced to wear pictures of scantily clad women around their necks, and being kept in isolation for months at a time, in either freezing or boiling temperatures.

    And people like you are willing to believe these lies. Ever hear of Al Takeyya? Or better yet, that their Al Qaeda training manuals teach them to complain about the treatment they receive from their captors? The above article is regarding a cookbook that is being published, of GOURMET MEALS that are being served these guys at Gitmo.

    Laura Curtis, one of the book’s editors, says the recipes would “make a point about how well we are treating these people.” Freed prisoners are said to have put on an average of nearly 14 pounds during captivity.

    “We feel that the word ‘torture’ is a serious abuse of the language when you apply it to what’s going on at Gitmo,” she says. “We’re pretty tired of the military-bashing that we see in the news.”

    On testing the recipes, one member of the book team disliked the glazed carrots but says the carrots “did not sink to the level of torture.”

    The issue of food at Guantanamo — described as “the gulag for our times” by Amnesty International last month and then compared by Sen. Richard J. Durbin to Nazi concentration camps — was the focus of a publicity stunt last week by the Republican chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.
    Rep. Duncan Hunter, California Republican, tucked into a typical dish and supplied details of a Sunday menu at Gitmo: orange-glazed chicken, fresh fruit, steamed peas and mushrooms, and rice pilaf.
    Calling it “gourmet fare,” Mr. Hunter singled out lemon-baked fish. “We treat them very well,” he says of the prisoners, some of whom have been held without trial since 2002. “They have never eaten better.”

    The Pentagon budgets $2.5 million per year for feeding the prisoners, which works out to $12.68 per person per day. Meals in federal prisons cost $2.78 per convict daily.

    Food for the detainees, including two hot meals per day, is prepared in the kitchens used for U.S. troops at the naval base. Pork and shellfish are off the menu for religious reasons. Popular dishes include curried eggs, tandoori-baked chicken and lyonnaise rice. A breakfast typically includes dates and honey.

    Prisoners considered to be well-behaved or low security risks are allowed to serve themselves around open-air dining tables in the detention blocks. Military police serve food to the other inmates.

    The only torture they’re getting is psychological; like playing Christina Aguilara music to them 24 hours a day or forcing them to wear underwear on their heads.

    A vast difference, as compared to people who punish a small hungry child who was stealing bread by rolling a truck over his arm.

    Charlie Daniels talks about Gitmo detainees in this article at Frontpage Magazine:

    We saw Camp X-Ray, where the Taliban detainees are being held only from a distance, but I picked up a lot of what’s going on there from talking with a lot of different people.

    The truth of the matter is that this operation is under a microscope. The Red Cross has an on site presence there and watches everything that goes on very closely. The media is not telling you the whole truth about what’s going on over there. The truth is that these scum bags are not only being treated humanely, but they are probably better off healthwise and medically than they’ve ever been in their lives. They are fed well, able to take showers and receive state of the art medical care. And have their own Moslem chaplain. I saw several of them in a field hospital ward where they were being treated in a state of the art medical facility.

    Now let’s talk about the way they treat our people. First of all, they have to be watched constantly. These people are committed and wanton murderers who are willing to die just to kill someone else. One of the doctors told me that when they had Taliban in the hospital the staff had to really be careful with needles, pens and anything else which could possibly be used as a weapon. They also throw their excrement and urine on the troops who are guarding them. And our guys and gals have shown great restraint in not retaliating. We are spending over a million dollars a day maintaining and guarding these nasty killers and anyone who wants to see them brought to the U.S.A. for trial is either out of their heads or a lawyer looking for money and notoriety. Or both.

    I wish that the media and the Red Cross and all the rest of the people who are so worried about these criminals would realize that this is not a troop of errant Boy Scouts. These are killers of the worst kind. They don’t need protection from us, we need protection from them. If you don’t get anything else out of this soapbox, please try to realize that when you see news coverage much of the time you’re not getting the whole story, but an account filtered through a liberal mindset with an agenda.

    Hell, the red cross brings Al Qaeda water…but they refuse to bring it to Idema and his men. There’s SOMETHING WRONG HERE.

    One more thing:

    A typical breakfast consists of pita bread, rice, curried eggs and peas, milk and fresh fruit, or hash browns, pita bread, a boiled egg, milk and fresh fruit. A typical dinner consists of rice, pita bread, meat and vegetable curry, milk, fresh fruit and margarine. A variant is rice, baked fish, stew sauce, spinach, orange or orange juice, milk and bread and margarine. JTF 160 provides the lunch vegetarian MREs.

    They serve them two special meals per year,for example, they served them lamb stew, rice, loaf bread, baklava and tea at the end of Ramadan in April. The Joint Task Force tells them when to serve the special meals.

    They also get special halal meat–approved and blessed by a muslim chaplain. Muslims use two terms to describe food - halal and haram. Halal is an Arabic word, which means lawful or allowed, but it is sometimes translated as acceptable or not forbidden. Haram means the opposite - unlawful or prohibited. Halal foods are foods that are permitted for consumption under Islamic law. It is sinful for a Muslim to consume haram foods.

    Haram foods include pig, dog, donkey, and animals having fangs, such as monkeys, cats and lions. It also includes amphibians such as frogs, crocodiles and turtles. Alcohol, harmful substances, poisonous and intoxicating plants or drinks are also haram.

    “You have to have halal certificates on chicken and beef, but there are no strict requirements on fish,”said their dietician.

    “My galley prepares two meals a day for the detainees — breakfast and the evening meal,” she noted. “They eat a vegetarian meal ready to eat, or MRE, for lunch. The menu that the dietitian prepared for us is about 2,300 calories. Add the MRE and they get about 2,600 calories per day. I like to believe they’re eating a lot better here than they were wherever they were before they got here. We take pretty good care of them.”

    I should say so. If you consider all the special stuff the government has done for them to bend over backwards so they can pray 5 times a day–they get prayer called over the loudspeakers, they have 24 hour access to a muslim holy man or imam, they each got a brand new koran (none of them had korans when they came off the battlefield), a brand new prayer rug, a prayer cap, a prayer cup, a sign in their cells pointing to mecca-…we’ve gone way out of our way to accommodate these people and still they complain.

    Terrorists, IMO, have vowed to kill us and they’ve been caught attempting to do so…unlike Idema and his men. They may be technically “human”, but they’re not deserving of our “compassion” and “understanding”. They view people who view them that way as “weak” and those are the people who wind up their victims.

12. Cao Says:
    November 10th, 2005 at 3:51 am

    As far as the claim that “we’re creating more terrorists” by fighting them, that’s a big laugh.

    Take a look at France. That’s a great example of what happens when you don’t 1) guard your borders against illegals 2) expect foreigners to assimilate and become Americans 3) realize radical Islamists have no intention of “assimilating”…they want to take over the world by murder and conquest. After all, that’s what their prophet did. 4) recognize who the enemy is and instead try to “understand” and “appease” them as you’re suggesting.

    Al Qaeda has killed fewer than 4,000 Americans since 1992. While the Soviets and their allies could field a mechanized army of millions, al Qaeda is in the thousands. (And quite a few of them are blowing themselves up for Allah, so consider that they have a large recruiting effort going on because they need to replace those idiots)

    The risk of terrorism was higher in the end years of the Cold War when the Soviet Union and China provided an ideological justification, extensive small-arms and bomb-making training, and cascades of cash for terrorists around the world. From the Shining Path in South America to the Red Army Faction and Red Brigades in Europe, these self-described revolutionaries kdinapped, killed and bombed throughout the 70’s and 80’s. Only the fall of the Soviet Union brought an end to their reign of terror.

    Sandler, the Dockson Professor of International Relations and Economics at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, sparked a controversy in 2004 by claiming that the Bush administration was substantially underestimating the deaths from terror attacks, apparently, for election-year reasons. The State Department’s annual survey of world-wide terrorism showed 208 terrorism acts for the year 2003. Sandler, who maintained his own extensive database of global terrorist incidents, recorded 275 attacks–a 32% difference. Such a discrepancy between the official State Department figures and hiw own didn’t appear in previous years, leading Sandler to expect the worst. “It would seem someone who is controlling the figures is acting more out of policies than recording statistics,” he said. He charged that the Bush administration was oundercounting to leave “false impressions” that the US is winning the War on Terror. The State department later updated its figures. The dispute did not turn on the number of Al Qaeda incidents, which were essentially the same by both the State Department’s and Sandler’s reckoning.

    It is significant that Sandler published data that challenges the widely held belief that the threat of terrorism has worsened since September 11. In Sandler’s paper, co-authored with Walter Enders, titled “After 9-11 Is it All Different Now?” he finds: “While there is no doubt that perceptions changed and deep-seated fears arose that fateful day, there has been no data-based analysis on how transitional terrorism (i.e. terrorism with international implications or genesis) differs, if at all, since 9-11.”

    What most people don’t realize is we’ve been under attack by Islamofascists since 1968…that’s 37 years of murdered Americans by Islamonazis who want to destroy our culture and reconstitute the caliphate. It’s about time we started fighting back before we end up with islamofascists rioting in the streets…or a suitcase nuke going off in New York…or Washington D.C…Here’s a picture to illustrate how these cowards fight.

    These people are not all nice and warm and fuzzy–they would kill you if they had the chance. A small example of their barbarity and cruelty was exposed when the IED factories and slaughterhouses were unveiled in Fallujah. Blood on the walls, bloody handprints on the walls, bags of sand that were used to soak up the blood, and videos of their bloody exploits. They behead, chop of hands and feet, and disembowel their captives and they like to record it so they can view it over and over again while sucking on a wad of khat.

    That’s pretty sick in my estimation. These are not people we should be sympathizing with or trying to UNDERSTAND. They quite simply want to destroy Western Civilization and people like you, by sympathizing with them are helping them achieve their goals, apparently not realizing that to them, you’re an infidel and they would just as soon kill you as they did Nick Berg.

    You realize, don’t you, that Nick Berg was killed because he was not a muslim–not because he was an American? And his father is involved in International ANSWER? So his father demonstrates against the war. A lot of good it did his son.

13. LASunsett Says:
    November 10th, 2005 at 9:17 am

    PJ,

    Every case stands alone and on its own.

    Abu Ghraib, from the looks of things, was nothing more than a bunch of bored night shifters, trying to fill the time. That was wrong, plain and simple.

    Other cases have to be looked at in terms of the objectives, the methods, and the time elements involved.

    The Objective

    If the objective is to gain valuable information that is critical to saving lives, certain methods of interrogation can and should be used to gain that info, if at all possible.

    Methods

    IMO, inflicting physical pain is not a good way to get that info, they will say anything to make the pain stop. But there are certain methods that many consider to be torture that do not cause physical pain, but rather psychological stress to the degree that you may get more cooperation. Many are even against this form of interrogation, but ask yourself this question: How important is it to you that we get critical information about an ongoing threat, before it’s too late?

    Time Elements

    If you had info that an attack would be planned on a school with your kids in it, a shopping mall that you will be shopping in, or any other such thing, wouldn’t you want to get the info? Anyway possible? As soon as possible?

    This war is so unlike any other we have ever faced. The way we conduct our end of it, will determine the outcome.

    I am not trying to steer this discussion away from Caos’ blog, but I did have a debate on my blog with a fellow blogger that I agree with most of the time. You are free to check it out for a more in depth explanation of my stance on this, then come back and pick up the discussion, here at Cao’s. If you wish.

    Political Yen/Yang

14. Redhead Infidel Says:
    November 10th, 2005 at 11:44 am

    PJ said: “The reason why we despise the methods of terrorist organizations is because they DON’T follow the laws set in the Geneva Conventions. To break those very laws that you condemn them for breaking makes you that much closer to them.”

    The terrorists don’t follow the Geneva Convetion as a matter of course. They couldn’t have an impact otherwise - their atrocities are what DEFINE & FURTHER their mission. On the other hand, any breaches of the GC by Americans or Brits is the EXCEPTION, not the RULE. Exceptions that are punished wihtout fail. We are the antithesis of terrorists.

    PJ said: “If we follow the premise that everyone is guilty until proven innocent, then we have to assume that we are holding them as innocent people.”

    That is a right guaranteed to American citizens under the Bill of Rights. These prisoners are not Americans and in fact, wish to wipe out the very freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

    PJ said: “While is it most definitely conjecture, I would assume that the rules, if set today, would be broader to contain ‘non-uniform’ combatants. Once again, this is an assumption, I’m the first to admit it.”

    No, thank g-d you’re wrong. Terrorist organizations have no place at the table of international law with heads of legitimate, governing nations. Even if they, g-d forbid, were ever invited to the table, they’d refuse because to be bound by the same laws as their enemies removes their ability to wage war via atrocities against civilians. Then where would they be?!

    Word of advice: If I were you, I’d spend less time worrying about the comfort of our enemies, and more time worrying about the safety of our troops.

15. Kender Says:
    November 10th, 2005 at 1:14 pm

    Wow…..I was going to step in and tell PJ to grow up and realize that though the terrorists may be human, they don’t treat each other as human, much less those they consider their enemy, so why they should expect any treatment that approaches humane is beyond me.

    PJ, if the Geneva conevntions were written today they would never be ratified, as the UN would try to hogtie the hands of the US while giving free rein to terrorists around the world……the US would never sign it.

16. Cao Says:
    November 10th, 2005 at 3:20 pm

    In this case all law that Karzai had promised he would abide by–has been thrown out the window. Not to mention –the State Department, US Embassy and the FBI.

    There were violations of Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the Geneva Conventions of August 12, 1949 relative to both Combatants and Non-Combatants in time of war and accompanying Protocols Relative to the Geneva Conventions. The United States of America and the government of Afghanistan are both signatories to those three aforementioned agreements and/or conventions.

    As a matter of fact, the Afghan government signed those agreements in order to get certain aid and financial relief. Violations of the Afghan Criminal Code are also included because President Karzai assured the United States his government would abide by those laws in order to obtain financial support from the U.S. and international community (i.e.: Italy). Based on those assurances by President Karzai, which the United States relied upon, Afghanistan obtained financial support and U.S. tax dollars for reconstruction, security, and equipment. As one minor example of this– U.S. taxpayers provided the handcuffs and training which were used to torture Idema, Caraballo and Bennett, at the direction of the State Department, the FBI and Ambassador Khalizad.

    These violations by the American government, the FBI and the Ambassador Khalizad also give rise to additional claims these three Americans can make for liberty restraints prohibited by the United States Constitution.

    There were also violations of the Afghan Criminal Code for Courts, the Afghan Penal Code, and the Status of Forces Agreement between the United States and Afghanistan. It should be noted that although no formal Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) exists by that name, and the U.S. has denied the existence of a SOFA to international monitoring organizations, such as the Red Cross, an agreement does exist relative to U.S. combatants in Afghanistan, which includes U.S. citizens operating with resistance forces such as Commander Ahmad Shah Massoud’s United Front Military Forces (more popularly known as the “Northern Alliance” or “N.A.”). It is this agreement, signed in September, October, and updated in November 2001, in Khoja-Bahaudeen, and the Panshir, which stood as a “Letter of Agreement” awarding status to military, para-military, and civilian forces operating against the Taliban and al-Qaida terrorists. (see the Habeas Corpus at the SuperPatriots site.)

    “My President told our nation he was going to unleash hell on the terrorists, and that is exactly what I did… so what’s the problem?” Jack Idema, in an interview.

    PJ has conveniently changed the subject, did you notice?

17. Cao Says:
    November 10th, 2005 at 5:16 pm

    As far as Abu Ghraib, having read Lynndie England’s testimony–she was having “fun” and didn’t see anything wrong with what she was doing.

    As far as I could tell by the court proceedings, they weren’t “torturing” these people to get any intelligence from them–they were degrading them and laughing at them.

    Very sick, but doesn’t really fit within the parameters of torture such as breaking ribs, dancing with the scorpion, falaqua, intense and brutal beatings, etc..

    This was piling naked bodies on top of each other–or forcing them to ********** in front of a woman, or being held on a leash.

    Again, I think the incidents aren’t really comparable with “torture”–they remind me more of –fraternity hazing.

    It’s really a joke among Iraqis…Abu Ghraib is air conditioned–they consider going there a “vacation” from the dirt, blowing dust storms, and heat.

18. Free Jack Idema! at The Irate Nation Says:
    January 5th, 2006 at 1:31 am

    […] Free Jack Idema Blogburst […]

Leave a Reply